There's so much on the agenda this week, I'm tempted to vote on-list *before* the meeting, just to speed things up :)
danielhas left
peterhas joined
Ge0rG
I'm unfortunately late to the party, still moving and only on mobile for the next hour
Ge0rG
And the worst thing is, I was only able to work through half of the Dusty drafts in advance 😕
Dave
Righty.
Kev
'tis time :)
Dave
Yeah, that.
Dave
Two ticks while I bring up the agenda - do we have a minute-taker?
jonasw
cannot take minutes, on mobile
jonasw
😾
Dave
OK. I'll do it if needs be.
Dave
1) Roll Call
daniel
Here
Dave
SamWhited ?
zinidhas joined
SamWhited
I'm here
Kev
I'm still here.
Dave
Cool. So just quasi-missing Georg.
Ge0rGhas left
Dave
Ah. Well, folks, I seem to have a problem, because I've just been called by my daughter who needs a lift.
Kev
Send your votes on list, hope she's ok.
Ge0rG
🤚
Dave
Sorry about this - can someone else take over for a bit?
Kev
Done.
Davehas left
Dave
Kev, She's fine, but she'll get very wet if she tries walking. :-)
Kev
3) CFE for XEP-0020: Feature Negotiation
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0020.html
Kev
Each of these votes has two parts - first whether to Call For Experience before moving to Final, the second to instead deprecate it. This one is for CFE with the intention to later move to Final.
Ge0rG
Is 0020 actually used in practice? It's referenced from 0066 and some deprecated ones
Kev
I'm -1 for 20 CFE.
Kev
No, 20's not used in practice anywhere I'm aware, although 155 references it
Ge0rG
Yes, 0155 was the other one.
Kev
155 is also not used :)
Ge0rG
-1 then.
daniel
-1
SamWhited
I've been thinking about this one a lot, because I've *thought* tabout using 0020 a few times, but never ended up doing it and am not aware of anything else using it. I'm leaning vaguely against moving it on, so -0 I suppose.
Should we instead deprecate? I'm +1, although we do need to sort 155 too.
Ge0rG
+1 as well
Kev
SamWhited: If you feel it's useful, you can easily -1 here :)
daniel
+1
SamWhited
No, I'm all for getting rid of cruft that no one uses. It actually occured to me that I've been confused by this one a few times when I thought about using it too, so I feel better about a -1/+1 respectively, but I'll leave my votes alone so that you don't have to change anything.
Kev
Well, Dave's on-list if Sam wants to change his mind anyway.
Kev
5) CFE for XEP-0048: Bookmarks
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html
Kev
I feel this is premature while the ongoing 49/223 mismatch question isn’t answered. +0
Ge0rG
There's that elephant in the room...
Ge0rG
What Kev said
SamWhited
This is just to do a CFE, not to actually move to draft, right? Seems like a good way to get more feedback. +1
Ge0rG
So we need a way forward with that as well
Kev
SamWhited: Final, not Draft. But correct.
jonasw
cfe is for final not draft
SamWhited
err, right, that.
Ge0rG
Maybe a cfe with the additional note about 0049 will do the trick
Kev
I'm not going to fight this :)
Kev
daniel?
daniel
I'm not really sure.
daniel
Yeah I guess +1
Ge0rG
I like the current wording in 0048, it's good enough anyway
Kev
Ge0rG?
Ge0rG
Ge0rG [17:11]:
> Maybe a cfe with the additional note about 0049 will do the trick
Read that as a +1
I'm just going to assume everyone who's +1 for CFE is going to be -1 deprecating going forwards and skip the vote.
Ge0rG
Kev: yes please
Kev
7) CFE for XEP-0059: Result Set Management
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html
Ge0rG
What about the recent discussion of combining before and after in MAM RSM.
Kev
The ongoing before/after discussion in the context of MAM makes this seem premature too, as this might result in significant change (at least in how some people are reading it). -1
SamWhited
+1
Kev
Ge0rG: Yes, I think we need to resolve that before we can sensibly think about Finalling this.
daniel
+1
Ge0rG
-1, what Kev said. Also -1 to depreciation
Kev
8) Deprecate XEP-0059: Result Set Management
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html
Kev
-1
SamWhited
-1
daniel
-1
Kev
9) CFE for XEP-0066: Out of Band Data
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html
Kev
+1
daniel
I'm not really sure what this is used for exactly...
Ge0rG
This is a good candidate for the "good parts" discussion
daniel
But +1
SamWhited
+1
Ge0rG
daniel: it's used for inline images in conversations
Kev
Ge0rG: Vote?
Ge0rG
Is anyone using the iq part of it?
Kev
I don't know, I think CFE should be interesting for this one.
daniel
Ge0rG: seems pretty hacky to me
Ge0rG
Then +1 for CFE
Kev
10) Deprecate XEP-0066: Out of Band Data
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html
All -1
Kev
11) CFE for XEP-0072: SOAP Over XMPP
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html
SamWhited
-1
Kev
+1. It seems sensible to deprecate it, but I think that we should ask if anyone’s using it first.
Kev
I suspect the outcome of a CFE on this one will make it obvious that it should or shouldn't be deprecated.
daniel
What Kev said. +1
Ge0rG
+1
Kev
12) Deprecate XEP-0072: SOAP Over XMPP
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html
Kev
-1, as above.
SamWhited
+1
daniel
-1
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rG
-1
Kev
13) CFE for XEP-0079: Advanced Message Processing
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html
Kev
I don’t see this advancing to Final unscathed, but +1 for a CFE.
daniel
+0
Ge0rG
+0
Kev
SamWhited?
Ge0rG
Somebody was recently asking for a way to make time limited messages
SamWhited
-0 I suppose; I'm a bit torn on this one, but I don't think it's worth blocking a CFE.
daniel
Not with this thought Ge0rG
daniel
Totally unsuited for that job
Kev
SamWhited: The CFE has been blocked (needs three +1).
Oh, huh, I didn't realize that worked differently. Fair enough, I'll +1 for CFE then
Kev
-1. I think it needs discussion first (e.g. with a CFE, but doesn't need to be)
jonaswhas left
SamWhited
+1 for deprecation also though.
Kev
Almost all Council votes work that they need a majority of +1 with no -1. I've not checked the rules for CFE recently, but I'm sure it won't pass on a minority.
Ge0rG
-1, agreed with Kev
daniel
-1
Kev
15) CFE for XEP-0092: Software Version
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html
Kev
+1
SamWhited
+1
daniel
+1
Ge0rG
+1
Kev
16) Deprecate XEP-0092: Software Version
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html
All -1
Kev
17) CFE for XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html
Kev
+1
daniel
+1
SamWhited
+0
Ge0rG
+1, sounds useful enough, but no idea who's using it
Kev
18) Deprecate XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html
Kev, daniel, Ge0rG -1
Kev
SamWhited?
SamWhited
+1
Kev
19) CFE for XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html
Kev
+1. I think this is one for deprecation, but I also think we need to discuss, particularly the xep60 dependency, first.
daniel
+1
SamWhited
-0, wouldn't block.
Kev
Ge0rG?
Ge0rG
+1
Kev
20) Deprecate XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html
Kev, daniel, Ge0rG -1
Kev
SamWhited?
SamWhited
+0
Kev
21) CFE for XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0141.html
Kev
+1
Ge0rG
+1
daniel
+1
Ge0rG
I'm for deprecation of 0131, but only after some discussion
SouLhas joined
Ge0rG
Sorry, mobile lag
Davehas left
SamWhited
-0 for CFE, +0 to deprecate.
Kev
22) Deprecate XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0141.html
Kev, Ge0rG, daniel -1. Sam +0
Kev
23) CFE for XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0229.html
Kev
+1. Be interesting to see if anyone actually uses this.
SamWhited
I have an implementation and use it, so +1
SamWhited
HipChat also uses it, IIRC.
SamWhited
(although I can't remember; I implemented it, and I *think* I used LZW, but it might have been gzip)
Ge0rG
Compression is insecure if not applied very cautiously. We should deprecate all of the related xeps
Ge0rG
So I'm -1 / +1
Ge0rG
Unless this is a veto, then I'm - 0
Kev
Our illustrious Chair should check the rules, but I believe (without checking) all the -1s on CFE will veto them.
SamWhited
I generally agree with that, so I am a bit torn, but do want to have a CFE and see what others think.
Ge0rG
Kev: then log me as -0 please
Dave
(Back, but Kev can carry on for consistency)
Kev
daniel: Got a vote on this one?
SamWhited
Dave: did you really go anywhere, or did you just want someone else to go through this massive list for you? *squinty eyes*
daniel
+1 cfe with an option to later deprecate the compression xep
daniel
Not just this xep
Dave
SamWhited, Can I borrow your fifth amendment for a sec?
Kev
Dave: Are you jumping in to vote now, or On List for the rest too?
SamWhited
Dave: any time
Ge0rGhas left
SamWhited
> XMPP Extensions Editor shall issue a Call for Experience
Kev
I'll take that as an On List and move on :)
Kev
24) Deprecate XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0229.html
Kev
-1
SamWhited
Maybe we should have just been voting to deprecate, doesn't look like we need to vote at all on a CFE; oh well.
SamWhited
+0
Ge0rG
+1
Kev
daniel is -1 presumably as +1 on CFE
Kev
Ok, ta.
SamWhited
Not that it hurts; I guess we can only ask the editor to issue one for any that we've voted on (though if they wanted to do it for others, that's their business)
Kev
Now onto the 'real' stuff.
Kev
25) XEP-0045: Implement stable IDs on Reflection #600
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/600
Kev
The feature should probably be named otherwise (e.g. http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#muc_stable_id for consistency with xep45, or a URI for consistency with new stuff), but ok to the intent. +1 after that tweak.
Dave
+1 on that. Looks OK.
daniel
+1
SamWhited
+1
Kev
Ge0rG: Are you ok with my above tweak?
Ge0rG
Kev: check the XEP, it's full of muc_* features. I've taken consistency with those
Kev
I don't think they're *features*, I think they're config settings, from memory.
Ge0rG
Kev: but I'm fine either way
Kevgoes to xep45 quickly.
Ge0rG
Kev: you might be right
SamWhited
Can you two hash that out after the meeting (unless it's going to change a vote)?
Ge0rG
SamWhited: apparently it is, for Kev
Kev
I suspect either I'll be wrong, in which case I'll +1 anyway, or I'm right and the change isn't contentious.
Kev
26) XEP-0153: Clarify encoding of update hash #593
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/593
Kev
+1
daniel
+1
SamWhited
+1 (with the note that "hexidecimal digits" doesn't make much sense, but whatever, people will know what it means)
Dave
+1
Ge0rG
+1
Kev
27) Date of next meeting
SBTSBC?
Dave
+1 to that.
SamWhited
oh, huh, nevermind, Wikipedia suggests that "digit" Is used regardless of the radix or number of symbols.
SamWhited
Ahem, back to this… +1
daniel
Wfm
Kev
Good enough :)
Kev
28) AOB?
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
Dave
None from me - I'll do the Editor's Issue for this and read through to write up the minutes.
SamWhited
Can I request that anything we voted on today where we ended up with no consensus to move forward or deprecate be added to the agenda for next week so we can hash through it in more detail and figure out why and what we want to do?
Kev
SamWhited: I suggest we do so onlist, before next meeting, personally.
Kev
But yes, we should see where the bodies have fallen and work out next steps.
Dave
SamWhited, I'll try to highlight those in the minutes, too, so we can thrash on-list as well.
SamWhited
That would work too, thanks!
Kev
Dave: I'm happy to write minutes if you like, as you weren't here.
Kev
I think we're done.
Kevhangs the navel
peter
Great work!
Kev
Thanks Peter. I think that might have been the most on the agenda in a Council meeting ever. I'm amazed Dave had the stamina to go through them all.
Kev
Oh, wait.
SamWhited
#humblebrag
Ge0rG
So the train has emptied enough for me to open up my laptop *just now*.
Kev
Nowt about bragging, it's about shaming Dave, which is much more fun.
SamWhited
#shameondave
Kev
Dave: Shout whether you'd like to minutes or like me to.
Dave
Kev, No, I'll do the minute in penance.
Dave
MinuteS. Definitely more than one of them.
Kev
Thanks.
SamWhited
Request for people here:
SamWhited
If you start a thread about one of the things that we didn't get consensus on, please start a separate thread for each one instead of replying to all of them on the minutes email.
SamWhited
It will be much easier to follow.
Kev
Additional request for people:
Can folks have a look at my suggested xep50 text and see if it looks sane and let me know, please? If so I'll turn it into a 'proper' PR, else we can adapt.
Ge0rG
What Sam said.
Ge0rG
Also we should list all XEP-### tags in the subject of minutes mail covering them, for subject-searchability.
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas left
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
jerehas joined
Lancehas joined
danielhas left
Lancehas left
ralphmhas joined
Davehas left
Davehas left
dwdhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
jonasw
Dave, thank you very much for the editor issue
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
Dave
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/601
jonasw
Dave, thanks! :)
jonasw
I’m gonna edit it to make it a tad more useful
Dave
I messed up, hang on.
jonasw
okay
Dave
Ta-da.
jonasw
awesome
jonasw
CFE is not a state, is it?
jonasw
(in contrast to proposed)
Dave
Right, it's just a Call For Experience to the list.
jonasw
right
jonasw
gonna make a template thing for that nevertheless
Dave
Which is interesting, because the Editor can do it at any time as long as certain conditions are met.
SouLhas joined
jerehas joined
ralphmhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
jonasw
Dave (et al.), shall we make the CFE period longer than 14d this time because they are so many at once?
jonasw
if so, how long?
Zash
Not on council, but that's probably wise. Or sending them in smaller weekly batches.
jonasw
I’m fine with both
jonasw
ha, I’m just gonna do that batched thing. it’s an editor task anyways.
SamWhited
I'd just do 14 days; we can always extend it later if needed.
Zash
Seems likely that they'd drown in each others noise if done all at once
SamWhited
Either way; batching seems reasonable and it's up to the editor.